How many players will we sign before the end of August?

[cross it Dave]

And TV revenue..........and some of those leagues are very cheap to buy tickets.

By budget we'd be in the top 200

In Bordeaux you can get a ticket for a baguette and a cheap glass of local wine, and they bus them in from miles away.

[cross it Dave]

And TV revenue..........and some of those leagues are very cheap to buy tickets.

By budget we'd be in the top 200

Then add in that it is not inconceivable that we might play in the most lucrative football match in world football at Wembley next May.

[cross it Dave]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c2ll8jdknzeo

things seemed to have changed last season.

[SheepRanger]

This is the average attendances of the five best supported European leagues (latest data from 22/23):

1. Bundesliga: 42.992
2. Premier League: 40.236
3. La Liga: 29.584
4. Serie A: 29.537
5. Ligue 1: 23.708

If the Championship would be the second best supported league in Europe we had to attract more attendance than the Premier League.
The average of the Championship was 18.787, so considerably behind the bigger leagues.

I cannot find a ranking of attendances of European clubs. But the world wide ranking of attendance shows that QPR ranks 290 according to Transfermarkt:

International attendance ranking | Transfermarkt

And TV revenue..........and some of those leagues are very cheap to buy tickets.

By budget we'd be in the top 200

[QPROslo]

Last season the Championship was the 2nd best supported league in Europe., I would put us around 100-120.

This is the average attendances of the five best supported European leagues (latest data from 22/23):

1. Bundesliga: 42.992
2. Premier League: 40.236
3. La Liga: 29.584
4. Serie A: 29.537
5. Ligue 1: 23.708

If the Championship would be the second best supported league in Europe we had to attract more attendance than the Premier League.
The average of the Championship was 18.787, so considerably behind the bigger leagues.

I cannot find a ranking of attendances of European clubs. But the world wide ranking of attendance shows that QPR ranks 290 according to Transfermarkt:

International attendance ranking | Transfermarkt

[cross it Dave]

Transfermarkt is a respected site. They rank teams by player value. Based on this ranking we are well outside top 200.

Why not use property value? Loftus Rd is worth a lot more than a #### hole in most of Europe.

And what about turnover.

Sivasspor, a Turkish club are above us, they play in front of 4,000, we get more in the Loft.

[cross it Dave]

https://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/championship-2nd-highest-support-in-europe.160056/

[SheepRanger]

Last season the Championship was the 2nd best supported league in Europe., I would put us around 100-120.

Really???
I would have thought it would be the Prem, Germany, Spain and the Championship?

But let's just say out of those four Leagues there are 85 treams. I accept that there are bigger clubs than us across Europe, let's say the top 7 of the other weaker Leagues. That's another 84 teams, say 170 in total. Even being more generous we have to be 180-200 in Europe

Are we really saying we're worse than the 7th placed teams in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Ffs most of these teams struggle to get 14,000 fans through the door. The Leagues in Hungry, Latvia etc........FFS

We're in top 200 for sure, but the last few seasons of struggle may have clouded opinion.

I will never be convinced that Kilmarnock who finished 4th in Scottish Premier League would beat us!!!

[QPROslo]

Transfermarkt is a respected site. They rank teams by player value. Based on this ranking we are well outside top 200.

[cross it Dave]

Exactly - The Chamionship is the fourth biggest league in Europe

Last season the Championship was the 2nd best supported league in Europe., I would put us around 100-120.

[cross it Dave]

In the first one we are below Shamrock Rovers and Londonderry City, laughable

[QPROslo]

Why are we not in the top 200 clubs in Europe?

There are numerous sites that rank European clubs. It is obviously not an exact science, which is best illustrated by the vastly different outcome of these rankings.

Of the many rankings I have found, the highest we rank is 295. It does not mean that I agree with this ranking, but I think it is a tough statement to claim we are a top 200 club. We are number 38 in England/Wales, based on the recent season. Most, if not all, of the clubs of the top divisions in Germany, Spain, Italy and France rank above us. That brings us to 120 at best, if there were no other leagues in Europe. However, there are many better teams in the Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Czech, Hungary, Romania and Ukraine than us, and a few from Denmark, Norway, Scotland, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Moldova and even Cyprus might also rank higher, and Russia if you still count it as Europe. Some of the better teams from the German and Italian second tier might also be on par with us. So I find it very unlikely we are top 200. But we are certainly top 300.

Here are some of the rankings:

Europe Football / Soccer Clubs Ranking - FootballDatabase

European football team ranking (eurotopteam.com)

Club coefficients | UEFA rankings | UEFA.com

Latest Ranking - Euro Club Index

[SheepRanger]

Why are we not in the top 200 clubs in Europe?

Exactly - The Chamionship is the fourth biggest league in Europe

[QPROslo]

We have nineteen 1st team players under contract next season. Not including Willock or Bergovic. IMO, first team squad around 24 players should be our aim. Two reasons.

Firstly, room for development squad players to step up.

Secondly, 1st team players see opportunities to play during season. 3rd choice player in a position probably won't play single game.

My view, we're looking for five players. We'd replace any sold.

I come to exactly the same conclusion when it comes to squad size (24). If we take the mentioned contracted first team players (19), add my proposed number of new signings (13), delete the players that could be sold (3) and players sent out on loan (5), I also get to 24 as the effective squad size.

The difference of your and mine proposal is the use of the loan market for young players that might benefit from getting regular game time elsewhere.

If we sign just five new players, plus replace any departing ones, we could not send a single player out on loan if we want to maintain a squad of 24. I think players such as Kolli, Walsh etc would benefit from a loan. They will come back much better, i.e., Eze and Chair.

Many will find 24 to be on the edge. If you have six injured or suspended players, which is not uncommon (including Richard Taylor!), you will have 18 players to choose from, meaning 11 to start and 7 on the bench. It is tight. But I buy into the ideas of a small squad, for your mentioned reasons, hence my proposal of just 13 signings, given that we send 5 out on loan.

The proposed number of 13 signings include any incoming loan signings.

[cross it Dave]

Why are we not in the top 200 clubs in Europe?